A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 30, 2019, at around 02:44, the Defendant was required to respond to a drinking test in a manner of inserting the breath of alcohol over about 10 minutes from around 03:23 to 03:32 of the same day, as there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as holding the breath of a breath police station D police box called out after receiving a 112 report that there is a suspected vehicle for drinking driving, and holding the breath of a breath of a breath of a breath in front of a breath of a breath of a breath of a breath of a police station, and holding the breath of a breath of a breath of a police station F at the time of mobilization

Nevertheless, the defendant, by clarifying his intention to refuse to take a drinking test, failed to comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the accused who has made a legal statement of witness F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a 112 reported case processing table, internal investigation report (on-site situation, etc.), on-site photo investigation report (in cases of prosecution opinion on refusal of the measurement of sound, with respect to the opinion on refusal of the measurement of sound

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (2) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The main purpose of Article 148-2(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, including the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution, is to promote the safety of traffic and facilitate the verification and punishment of drunk driving, at the same time, by indirectly compelling the measurement of alcohol, and is not to punish the illegality of non-compliance with the measurement itself.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8481 Decided December 24, 2015). A person who has reasonable grounds to recognize that a person was under the influence of alcohol pursuant to Article 148-2(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act refuses to comply with a police officer’s measurement under Article 44(2) of the same Act.